User talk:Sj

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Old discussion[edit source]

other licenses[edit source]

Thanks for the poke! I've just updated my user page to note that I'm contributing all of my content on this wiki to the public domain. —mako 17:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WCR is Wiki Campus Radio[edit source]

Hi Sj. I think you might wanna see Wiki Campus Radio. (just guessing) -- CQ 02:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

that's awesome; thanks! Sj 23:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mentat wiki month[edit source]

The Mentat wiki month page has been updated to actually show what's going on and how you can participate (or at least how I'm doing it) - come on over and join the fun! (also, why is it that everywhere I go on the interwebs, you're already there? :P) Mchua 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sj/thoughts[edit source]

ping --mikeu talk 15:00, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping, mike! I'll get back to this in a bit. Sj

Thanks SJ:)Sound advice for a new wiki user like myself. Cheers, u118827

original welcome[edit source]

Hello Sj! Welcome to Wikiversity! If you decide that you need help, check out Wikiversity:Help desk, ask the support staff, or ask me on my talk page. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! -- Trevor MacInnis 17:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikiversity rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical

New discussion[edit source]

Category:Namespace cleanup‎[edit source]

I look forward to seeing what you tag as being in the wrong namespace. However I hope you can understand that essays are educational and can belong in the main namespace, discussions can be educational and can also belong in the namespace. Are not personal essays often in the project (Wikiversity) namespace on other wikimedia projects too? For example Wikipedia: Category:Wikipedia essays. -- darklama  00:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi darklama, I only found that one article so far, but I expect that a lot of the original research people do starts life as a personal essay (when would that be appropriate for the main namespace?), which should be tagged as an essay, not as 'course material about topic X'. And discussions, unless they are directly discussions about a learning project or material, belong on talk pages -- that's what they're for. Some essays definitely belong in the project namespace; others do not. There's a fine line between the two sometimes, but unwikified personal notes or sandboxes of a single person belong in the user: namespace, not attributed to the community at large. SJ+ 00:28, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think pages that start life as a personal essay are fine in the main namespace to begin with if they want other people to contribute to it, expand it, improve it, and perhaps turn it into more than just an essay. If a page says "course material about topic X" I think that means the author intends for it to be expanded into something more than just an essay. Discussion pages are often used for course maintenance tasks for lack of better description. Other things like discussing the topic of the course is often done both in the main namespace and talk page. Going naked - Openism and freedom in academia#Responses and Talk:Going naked - Openism and freedom in academia comes to mind as an example of discussion about the topic that happens in both places. Unwikified personal notes or sandboxes I would need to see before I could comment on where I think it belongs. Some sandboxes may be fine in the project namespace like if its a sandbox of the main page, or a subpage of another page maybe. Unwikified personal notes might just need to be wikified and moved to the main namespace depending on what it is. -- darklama  00:46, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe use a template to categorize pages and word the template text as a question? Like "Should this page be in the {{{1}}} namespace? (discuss)" -- darklama  00:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is a wiki, feel free to edit templates or other pages as you see fit. Wikiversity currently suffers from a remarkable cleanup backlog; most pages need at least a bit of basic cleanup and thousands of pages need major cleanup. Don't get hung up on minor details... SJ+ 01:13, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My last comment was intended to cut to the chase so as not to mistake my input as getting hung up on the details and could just move forward with the doing. Wikiversity participants like to ask questions and discuss. I am thinking any clean up ideas you might have in mind could benefit from use of categories+templates that asks a question and points to the talk page for discussion. -- darklama  01:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. I am copying the 'cleanup' templates which do point to the page's talk page. I don't know how to phrase the statement as a question -- my intent is to encourage any second person coming across the page to boldly cleanup/move the page, and discuss only if they feel it is necessary. A question would encourage any second person to discuss, and only cleanup/move if they feel it is necessary. SJ+ 02:09, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Purely Book Material?[edit source]

I was surprised that you thought the work I had done on Artificial Consciousness was purely book material, or that you would think that it would get a fair hearing on Wikibooks. I started out just to fill in data on the field for dionysis who is long since gone.

It does seem to be good book material you've been developing. Aside from the OR issues, which may merit splitting it into two pieces, I would expect that sort of material to be appropriate for (and welcome on) WB, in theory. And I realize now there is more OR involved than I expected -- that might benefit from being more clearly indicated here. SJ+

So it was originally part of his course outline I don't know what portion. Then as I worked I realized that it was a survey course of the current understandings on Artificial Consciousness, I wanted to capture the state before my Portals research started.

Interesting. Is the original course outline/concept thereof posted anywhere?

Now you may kick that it doesn't have the teacher support stuff that it should have, but, I have been working alone on it, and I am not a teacher. What do you want in the way of support documents? I don't think there is anywhere in "What Wikiversity is" that it suggests that articles and courses have to have a specific format, but if you have decided to be the format police I think you should at least, discuss the issue first before labelling a course for transwiki.

I don't have specific thoughts re: support documents beyond the ones listed in my transwiki comment, I just would like to see collaboration b/t WV and WB whereby courses rely on texts on WB, and texts refer to course outlines, discussions, problems, exam ideas, and discussions about classroom use on WV. I'm not labelling the course for transwiki, since this is the place for any and all course material. I'm suggesting that any textbook-style materials being used as part of the course might be usefully transwiki'ed. This is more clear for the C++ book, but seemed relevant for your AC course material as well. SJ+ 06:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Related topic - I think that there's a gray area around reading packets, where a series of vaguely related readings with discussion belong on WV, but draft chapters from a future book belong on WB... what do you think? SJ+

Especially if the work has any problems for Wikibooks. As you may know I have worked with Wikibooks and this type of information might not be acceptable to them because it borders on Original research, if only by putting the data together in a novel way that is not well supported with quotes.--Graeme E. Smith 14:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see separating out the possible-OR from the background-material, where again solid background with references (which your material has in abundance) would be good for WB, and perhaps a different superstructure with OR and novel articulation belongs on WV. SJ+ 06:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inexplicable physics articles[edit source]

I wanted to note that I blocked the IP for adding another one that clearly came from another source (or sources) without any notice of said source. This is a common trend. I will be unblocking once they realize the problem and show willingness to discuss the other problems (and hopefully register too). Ottava Rima (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SJ+ 01:03, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fyi[edit source]

I noticed your comments over at the open letter project, and in particular your feeling that the 'how to detect etc.' project was a good way forward. I haven't (yet) taken the opportunity to find and review that project (though I must!) - but I thought you might like to have a look at Wikimedia_Ethics/Response_testing_on_WMF_projects - as I mentioned on the colloquium a few days back, I think that's where I see the best foot forward :-) Got any spare time to join? cheers, Privatemusings 01:25, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello PM, as I said to you the other day, while I think that one can extract something that could help Wikipedia and sister projects from your initial idea, I don't think that you should take it on as your next project. As for contributing, I don't see this as an especially useful topic - there are more efficient ways to study how to improve contribution to or usability of Wikipedia, and WV has more immediate issues to resolve. SJ+ 07:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Portal-url‎[edit source]

Tx - fixed now. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 12:26, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Near Death Experience as Possible Evidence for any Afterlife[edit source]

Please explain in more detail what is your criticism? How do you want me to improve the project? Do others here agree with you? Proxima Centauri 09:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sock puppets[edit source]

The following user pages were made in evenly spaced apart times and contained copies of the main page. User:Jaunminigreat2, User:9Kggmuopkj, and User:Qyesq. Their contributions were minimal (mostly deleted or reverted) and had highly questionable behavior.

This suggests that they were possibly blocked somewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The diff is from the first one listed. The cross wiki contrib log of Qyesq shows that they were blocked by the person they complained about being blocked by. It is possible that Qyesq was the main (or the current main of that incarnation). Ottava Rima (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of a new namespace[edit source]

Hi Sj. As suggested by User:Ottava Rima, may I make you a request for comment on User talk:Ottava Rima#Hi Ottava Rima, whether from the WV or WM perspective? --KYPark 02:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation[edit source]

[1] "rather than everyone simply chuckling and moving on, I would have kept it for my own amusement."

A moderator should not display copyrighted material in a public area, releasing it via GFDL without authorization, and doing so for people to get a "chuckle". I expect him to be admonished and removed for such an egregious violation. At the very minimum, I seek to have my copyrighted material there and throughout (as two emails were forwarded to the list) to be removed with any replies containing the material to be removed. Mockery is not an excuse to steal copyrighted material and release it without authorization. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two proposed policies need discusson[edit source]

Please see. I am contacting regulars and admin so we can start going through our proposed policies and establish some. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human Legacy Course[edit source]

I completely agree with what you stated on my talk page. I'm really not recruiting my students from anywhere as they just show up and come to the course. We are currently starting our 4th week right now, but if you would like to join the course, then that would be absolutely fine. I will consider that wiki-journal and have my students leave their feedback in it.

Also, I do agree with you that we should try to send out announcements about the schedule of courses and how other students can get involved because I have seen some students that are a little confused regarding the Wikiversity format. --MrABlair23 14:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your steward hat[edit source]

This happened without discussion by an inactive Crat.

SB Johnny states: "Things are a bit out of balance, and I'd like to perform a few actions in the interests of restoring that balance."

This makes it clear that he believes that Thekohser's account should be renamed then renamed again to break the SUL and the global lock. This is without community discussion and also with a complete disregard for a two year long plus track record of cross Wiki abuse with using Wikiversity as a platform to attack the Foundation.

SB Johnny also created a competing Wiki-like project. I have a feeling that it would be necessary for the Foundation to intervene along with a few key desysopings to prevent a clear outsider from abusing his authority in a way that can only possibly destroy Wikiversity as a project. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:52, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A few key desysopings"! Accepting the idea of such aggressive action seems to me the greatest threat to Wikiversity as a project. Please assume good faith, and use less polarizing language. A few specific replies:
Mike is reasonably active by Wikiversity standards. (I suppose the only one of the 5 'crats here who you would call active is Jtneill?) SBJ has made important contributions here and generally kept a level head, and is neither an outsider nor someone interested in harming the project.
I see nothing negative about people creating similar 'competing' projects. A more vibrant ecosystem of similar projects each with its own spirit and culture would be useful, and the great thing about the licenses we choose is that anyone working under those licenses is contributing to the same public commons. While SBJ's stated reasons for returning may sound activist, and I'm not sure that local standards have been set for how and when to restore tools, I trust Mike's judgement.
It is not appropriate for people to use Wikiversity as a platform to air personal grievances of any sort. That does not seem to be in question, and the WV community is fully able to keep discussions civil. (If anything, you will find the most strongly-worded grievances on Wikipedia, since it has more people and more drama.) SJ+ 02:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sj. Don't worry, I'm still level-headed :-).
Just for the record on the "competing Wiki-like project": it's not a competition, it's just something different. It's a "social contract community" with human beings taking the place of captcha. Hopefully it will be something I'll feel comfortable with my young daughter using (or my septagenarian mother!), where there's little risk of running across goatse or scary people. And better software for the bloom clock, of course.
I've got a lot of emotional investment in wv. I'm not at all sure what I personally can do to improve things (or at least stop the rapid decline), but it seems like just being here as a crat has already made some small difference in shifting the dynamic. There's hope in that!
I'll do my best to provide pillows before I start knocking heads :-). --SB_Johnny talk 03:38, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your responses to HHF[edit source]

Hi SJ! I see you have posted a question regarding Highschool Help Forum a few months back.

It's great that my work got noticed.

I have an idea for us to make the highschool help forum more useful and productive. Specifically meant for content generation. I want it to become an exhaustive resource for those who are studying the topic - through an input that is given drop by drop to make up the ocean.

I have had several thoughts as to what makes Wikiversity a little slow - having contributed to wikibooks myself. Please drop me a message as soon as possible! --Dharav talk 15:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your RfD on A Translation of the Bible[edit source]

[2]. I appreciate this opportunity to clarify more of what Wikiversity is about.

In a university, students prepare independent projects, different teachers may prepare and present a course on the same topic in different ways. The Wikisource Bible is a unified project, where, apparently, editors come to consensus on translation. Or work on separate chapters, I don't know the nuts and bolts, but I see that only one translation is presented.

As a Muslim, I'm quite sensitive to the error of considering a translation as the original. The Wikisource page is simply titled Bible (Wikisource). That's correct. This is the Wikisource translation of the Bible, through a Wikisource project. No other translation is a duplication of it, and one approach to study of these ancient source texts is to read multiple translations.

There is a further issue. The author here is blocked there, for reasons unrelated to content abuse. Working on translation here creates separate value, but also might eventually be ported there, or be the basis for further revisions there, all according to consensus there. Explicit study comparing translations may be done here, Wikiversity is designed for this. There, comparison would be for the purpose of choosing "what's best." Here, it would be for the purpose of learning and deepening knowledge.

There is no other place in the WMF family that is like Wikiversity in this respect, fostering discussion and study and debate, as ends in themselves. On Wikipedia, for example, discussion is limited, often enforced as such, to what is necessary to consider article changes. Here, topics may be discussed for learning and educational purpose. For this reason, I believe, edit warring is rare here, we handle content conflicts differently.

Thanks for your consideration. --Abd 18:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alteration of comments after response to them by others.[edit source]

See [3]. This has also happened on meta. It is traditional, if a response has been posted to a post, perhaps criticizing it, to leave the original in place, using strike-out to reflect changes, perhaps with brackets to show correcting insertions. Without this, the responses cannot be understood. If, say, an editor makes a personal attack, and another editor refers to this as such. If the first editor redacts the text without using strikeout, the second editor looks like he's unreasonably attacking the second! Thanks for your attention to this. I thought of correcting your posts, but decided it was better to trust you to do that! --Abd 23:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[4] Thanks. That's an improvement. May I ask that you use edit summaries to briefly describe the content of your edits? It makes it easy for others to track what you are doing. No obligation, of course, just what I've learned to be helpful. --Abd 18:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiversity:Community Review/Custodianship process[edit source]

Hi SJ - if/when you have a moment, your thoughts about how we might improve the English Wikiversity custodianship process would be appreciated. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 18:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jtneill, I replied briefly on that page. It seems to me the main thing WV needs is more active custodians, more people organizing courses, and less drama. Recruiting educators of various sorts to come contribute may address all of these issues at once. SJ+ 20:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits[edit source]

Sj, in your comments on my probationary custodianship, you describe the subject page as if it were a cross-wiki dispute. Can you clarify that, based on what's actually on the page? User talk:Abd/Wikipedia/List of self-reverted edits is open, and if there is anything there that violates Wikiversity policy, or that harms another wiki (which is distinct from documenting possible harm on another wiki), it should be removed immediately. (Specifically, what's the "dispute" on that page? It's just a record of actions and responses, practically pure evidence.)

I'm very concerned about what is appearing as a campaign to attack Wikiversity independence. Can you allay my fears, or are they justified? Thanks. --Abd 20:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your questions at my Candidates for custodianship page[edit source]

I've responded to your questions there, but this will be more detailed than what would be appropriate on the CC page, where the real issue is just what affects Wikiversity, but you ask questions with wider import.

By the way, on Wikiversity, probationary custodianship is not a community poll, and support/oppose at this point is inappropriate, my opinion. But you have the right to your opinion.

  • Why are you flouting Wikipedia policy and documenting it here on Wikiversity? How do you see that further the goals of Wikiversity?
    • I have answered this in the RfD, in the collapse box presently near the end, and also on the Talk page for the documentation page. Briefly, though, I'm disregarding, not exactly "flouting," an implied policy that does not apply, paradoxically, to banned users. Policies govern users, in a way, but do not coerce user behavior. Rather, they guide how other users respond to user behavior. So if a user is blocked, for that user to edit, aside from as specifically permitted, is grounds for further sanctions, and my position has been that a block is a site ban for the period of the block, and that the distinction between blocks and bans is mostly pedantic. A block is a site ban determined by an implementing administrator.
    • The WMF may coerce behavior, through legal injunctions, as Newyorkbrad hinted in his mails to Arbcomm, leaked. (He'd also written some of this directly to me). That is, I'm easily identified, real-world, and if the WMF were exercised, it could obtain, on a showing of fact adequate for a court, an injunction against my editing the site. Absent that, I have no legal or moral obligation to refrain from editing. I would defend against an injunction, but I would follow one that was issued. It would be expensive for the WMF, and the benefit justifying that expense would be?
    • ArbComm and the administrative community have no such coercive power, response is limited, in the extreme, to bans, blocking, range blocking, edit filtering, and revision deletion or oversight. As I assume you know, policy is w:WP:RBI. If that were followed, there would be far less problem. It isn't followed, too often, resulting in unnecessary disruption. Demonstrating the reality of enforcement practice, whatever it is, is one of the goals of my disregard of the blocks. Disruption from my behavior has been entirely the result of over-enforcement. Consider the self-reverted edits. They leave behind no mess to clean up. An self-reverting editor, I've argued, unless the edits themselves create a problem (like copyvio or serious libel), may be blocked, or not, and a mature approach, one that I'm advocating, is that self reversion for harmless edits that formally violate a ban or block would never be grounds for blocking, they would not be considered ban violations at all, unless they are causing an actual problem. They are merely an efficient way for a banned editor to make a suggestion. Nobody is obligated to pay any attention to it at all. But that doesn't satisfy those who actually want to exclude the editor's POV.
    • The same issues apply here. Self-reversion -- look at that documentation page! -- was used here to establish a pattern of cooperation and good content contribution for Thekohser. The process works, and the result was positive. Unless you believe that Thekohser must be blocked No Matter What. People do not understand SR editing because it's outside the box, it is contrary to what many have expected for years. The only way to get this across is to demonstrate it. When people can see the results, they understand. That process is not complete, I'd say. But it (or something better) will come, through me or through someone else. If Poetlister is globally banned, watch for it with him, he might take this on under some conditions. And if you don't like that, I suggest you bite your wrist, it will be more useful. Sorry to be blunt!
  • You have chronicled a few small factual corrections that were accepted on Wikipedia; do you see this as a significant contribution to the goals of that project?
    • In themselves, no. However, the patterns and processes shown can be a major contribution to that project, resolving, potentially, problems that have afflicted Wikipedia for many years. I'm asking, Sj, that if you want to judge this now, before it is all documented and analyzed, with consensus conclusions -- not just by me! -- you will need to, likewise, think outside the box, because it is the box that has trapped Wikipedia into continued dysfunction, maintained disruption, and fundamental failure to realize, reliably, neutrality policy.
  • Why do you think that it is still appropriate for you to be a custodian here - presumably someone who would uphold local policies - given your efforts to violate the policies of a sister wiki?
    • It's really irrelevant. My efforts are not to "violate the policies" of a sister wiki, but to call on it, through examples, to follow its own policies, the policies are excellent. If they were actually followed! Because my work with Wikipedia is a very long-term project, started in earnest in 2007, based on structural considerations developed over about thirty years, I'm not about to abandon that work in favor of the right to take out the trash at Wikiversity. Like many Wikipedians, Sj, you seem to think of admin tools as a reward of some kind. No, it's an opportunity to do boring work, of little enduring interest. I am, with the self-reversion (and related socking that is not self-reverted, to show what happens when range blocks are issued for harmless editing), doing something of possibly world significance. Being a custodian here will actually inhibit that to some degree, for reasons I won't explain, but you can figure out some, I'm sure. If nothing else, I'll have more work to do that accomplishes nothing but a cleaner workspace here. Others could do that. Maybe Poetlister, if he's interested! He certainly has the skills and the proven track record, if only he refrains from socking here. I think he might be willing to do that, but I haven't asked him yet. Something entirely missing from all the process with Poetlister: asking him for voluntary, non-coerced compliance, which requires a quid pro quo. What actually happened with him should not happen to anyone: blackmail, tacitly approved by ArbComm.
    • I have already been a probationary custodian here for two extensive periods, both terminated abnormally, effectively by a single user, himself desysopped and damned near banned, here and on meta. I have a record that can be examined, and that's why one of the 'crats has supported my third candidacy. The other doesn't like that I write too much, to make it brief, and also maybe that I've criticized what I saw as his unnecessarily thoughtless actions. I continue to work with that 'crat and have continued to work for cleanup and content and welcoming users and deletion process, whatever I can do without tools. Every day I see something where I could make a contribution if I had the buttons, and none of this would be controversial. I do what I can do with speedy deletion templates. You know, most of those are placed in mainspace, but they don't show up in my contributions unless you look at deleted contributions! Most of my work is far from dramatic, you look at what seems dramatic to you, and then assert this as the whole banana, that's again a common Wikipedia mistake.
    • May I suggest, Sj, that you do not seem concerned, in your comments, about the welfare of Wikiversity, but about external political considerations? Is this an unfair comment? Please relieve me of any misunderstandings! --Abd 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. I asked, early on, for anyone thinking what I was doing on Wikipedia was harmful, to talk with me about it here. I think that was revision-deleted, if I recall correctly. Wikipedia has the idea that it can gain compliance with bans by ignoring the banned editor, entirely. That may work for the banned whose motive is "attention." Tell me, Sj, how well has that been working with the rest? Or even with those who seriously are demanding attention? Scibaby? Have you ever looked into the origins of the Scibaby sock farm? --Abd 21:24, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you have insight into other sock farms or puppet theaters, I would be glad to hear them. SJ+ 03:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The w:User:Scibaby sock farm started when Scibaby was blocked by an involved administrator, who became, later, as a checkuser, heavily involved in "protecting" Wikipedia from Scibaby. The resulting disruption(s), including many false accusations of "being Scibaby," and massive range blocks, continued for years, including today. I spent a fair amount of time reviewing the origins of this, and it did receive some Foundation-level attention, and that checkuser eventually resigned. But the damage continues. Scibaby was not, as a new user, welcomed, but was harassed, and clearly because his point of view was opposite to that of those editors who owned the relevant article at the time. This was related to what was eventually brought to ArbComm by myself, in my own last case, and later by Lar, more explicitly, with the Climate Change arbitration. It's never been deeply addressed, how much damage involved admins can cause, all the while believing that they are protecting Wikipedia. Possible solutions are generally rejected as unworkable. Wikiversity:Assembly is an attempt to demonstrate a piece of a solution that has never been tried. Please consider registering as a member, on Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table. Thanks. --Abd 16:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing for your RfD?[edit source]

You notified the following editors regarding Wikiversity:Requests for Deletion#A Translation of the Bible, besides the primary author, User:Poetlister. (Your habit of avoiding descriptive edit summaries makes research a little difficult, but this is what I find.)

You did not notify the following users who commented in the original RfD:

You also did not notify me, but I'd already commented in the new RfD.

Have you engaged in selective notification? Did you use subjective standards to determine whom to notify? Thanks. --Abd 01:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moulton and JWSchmidt are now blocked here, Anonymous Uploader didn't express an opinion, and I missed the other two. Corrected. SJ+ 03:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, thanks[edit source]

I've been noticing all the work you are doing here. Thanks. --Abd 04:53, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your requested undeletions[edit source]

Now that I'm a probationary custodian, I was able to satisfy your request for undeletion of certain pages:

Because the original deletion reason was within policy, I am not deciding the ultimate fate of these files. I have added a slow deletion category to the pages, and assume that they will, if license problems are not fixed, be deleted, after some decent pause. However, because the original uploader did obviously intend to give permission for their use, under the license that existed at the time, I strongly suspect that some solution can be found to keep the pages, which were used in a resource that this user created and obviously expected to continue being hosted. If you can fix the license, or if we develop a policy to keep such pages that is acceptable to the WMF, then the slow deletion category may be removed. Thanks. --Abd 18:20, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of speedy deletions[edit source]

You have not responded with respect to these pages. I am changing the slow deletion tag to a speedy deletion tag. If you wish these pages kept, please remove the tag and take responsibility for them, or, if nobody else takes responsibility, they will be deleted, presumably after a week. Thanks. --Abd 16:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to register for the Wikiversity Assembly[edit source]

  • The Wikiversity:Assembly has been established as a technique for developing reports on topics of import for Wikiversity administration. The Assembly is not a decision-making body, per se. Rather, it is designed to create or discover or estimate consensus, through focused, facilitated, thorough deliberation. Assembly reports may be referenced in regular Wikiversity discussions, but will not directly control outcomes. Where full consensus is not found, minority reports may be issued.
  • I invite you to register for the Wikiversity:Assembly by adding your user name to the Wikiversity:Delegable proxy/Table.
  • Registering for the Assembly creates no specific obligation, but does consent to direct communication as the Assembly may determine is appropriate. You may opt out of such direct communication by adding "no messages" to the Table when you register, in the user comment field, but it is unlikely that the default (communication allowed) will create burdensome traffic for you.

You are invited to name a proxy[edit source]

  • When you register for the Assembly, you may optionally designate a "proxy."
  • I suggest that you nominate, as a proxy, the user whom you most trust to participate positively in a Wikiversity discussion if you are unable to participate yourself. The proxy will not be voting for you in any process. Rather, the proxy will be considered to loosely represent you, as a means of estimating probable large-scale consensus based on small-scale participation, in the event that you do not personally participate.
  • If you name a proxy, you will be consenting to direct communication with you by that proxy. If a named proxy accepts the proxy, you become, as long as you maintain the nomination (you may change it at any time), the "client" of the proxy, and by accepting, a proxy has consented to direct communication from the client.

Comments[edit source]

This is actually an experiment in what could become large-scale, efficient, deliberative process, normally considered an oxymoron. Please consider registering. Thanks. --Abd 18:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abd's nomination for full custodianship[edit source]

Discussion re-opened on this nomination, November 16. You commented in the original discussion, but have not commented in the current one, which might close on November 21. The current discussion is at Wikiversity:Candidates for Custodianship/Abd (full custodian)#Re-opening_community_discussion. --Abd 20:29, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]